Yesterday the Senate had two votes related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and President Bush devoted a portion of his State of the Union Address to a call for an extension of his surveillance authority and for immunity for telecommunications companies who cooperated with his administration in surveillance operations. But questions surrounding surveillance are far more pervasive than even this controversy suggests. No Comment puts six questions to Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida widely regarded for his work in the area. Professor Slobogin’s new book, Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment, has just been published by the University of Chicago Press.

Six Questions for Christopher Slobogin, Author of ‘Privacy at Risk’

Joseph Stiglitz:

When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.

...

Some portion of the damage done by the Bush administration could be rectified quickly. A large portion will take decades to fix—and that’s assuming the political will to do so exists both in the White House and in Congress. Think of the interest we are paying, year after year, on the almost $4 trillion of increased debt burden—even at 5 percent, that’s an annual payment of $200 billion, two Iraq wars a year forever. Think of the taxes that future governments will have to levy to repay even a fraction of the debt we have accumulated. And think of the widening divide between rich and poor in America, a phenomenon that goes beyond economics and speaks to the very future of the American Dream.

In short, there’s a momentum here that will require a generation to reverse. Decades hence we should take stock, and revisit the conventional wisdom. Will Herbert Hoover still deserve his dubious mantle? I’m guessing that George W. Bush will have earned one more grim superlative.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

Hendrik Hertzberg:

Obama’s Democratic critics worry that his soaring rhetoric of reconciliation is naïve. But, as Mark Schmitt has argued in The American Prospect, Obama’s national-unity pitch should be viewed as a tactic as well as an ideal. It might lengthen his coattails, helping Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate in marginally red districts and states. It would not protect him from attack, of course, but it would enable him to fire back from the high ground. And, as a new President elected with a not quite filibuster-proof Senate, he would be in a better position to peel off the handful of Republican senators he would need to make meaningful legislative progress than someone who started from a defensive crouch. Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.

The Spat

In this new world, who is to say that the party’s superdelegates would still vote as the reliable instruments of the Democratic establishment? And even if they did, who is to say that other Democrats would tolerate a nomination brokered by a bunch of insiders? In the blog age, such events would likely turn the party upside down.

...

None of us know where politics is headed after this campaign, as one American moment passes and another begins. John Kennedy ushered in the generation of American leaders born after 1900, and his short presidency made possible a prolonged progressive era and, ultimately, the Reaganesque reaction to it. Gary Hart imploded, but his generational rebellion against liberal orthodoxy and his embrace of a modern economy — Hart and his brethren were known as the “Atari Democrats” — led directly to Clintonism. Similarly, even should Obama fail, he will be followed by reinforcements in both parties, an invading army of Gen-Xers who grew up amid the bitterness and polarity of boomer politics but who never quite understood why. It may take four years, or another four after that, but the door is now ajar. And history tells you that all the delegates in the world — super or not — won’t be able to slam it shut.

Back-Room Choices

1. The Female Thing
2. Mind the Gender Gap
3. Race Matters—and Class, Too
4. Winning Women Isn’t the Same as Winning
5. Besides, Women Keep an Open Mind
6. What About the Middle Ground?
7. The Gap That Matters
8. What Makes Women Tune Out
9. Pride and Prejudice
10. XX Marks the Spot
11. When Sisterhood Is Power
12. More Sense Than Sensibility
13. It Does Take a Village
14. Or a Cybervillage
15. The Political Is Personal
16. By the Numbers

SINCE 1964, more women have voted than men have, and since 1980, they have voted at higher percentages: 54 percent of voters in the 2004 presidential election were female. If women care less about politics than men do, why do they bother? In one recent study, women said that they vote to protect their interest. Whereas men said they vote because they enjoy politics. To a campaign strategist, the female vote — if you can get it — must look like the Chinese market does to an entrepreneur. Only a modest percentage has to want your product, and you’ll succeed beyond your wildest dreams.

See also: Where Did All Those Gorgeous Russians Come From?

16 Ways of Looking at a Female Voter

Frank Rich:

However much the Democrats might finesse differences on Iraq or any other issue in 2008, their best hopes for electoral victory still have less to do with their own ideas than with the sorry state of their opponents. Compared to the increasingly fractious and disheartened conservative coalition, the Democrats could pass for a model of coherence and unity. Compared to the Bush presidency, almost any conceivable Democratic ticket would seem a step up to the vast majority of voters eager to turn the page. The Democrats could yet lose the White House in 2008, especially if the general election becomes a referendum on the Clintons or race, but it would take the party's full powers of self-immolation to do so.

On the Democrats

Nose, face, spite.

Changes reportedly made last night in the stimulus package would reduce its effectiveness as stimulus. Although the package includes a reasonably designed tax rebate, the two most targeted and economically effective measures under consideration — a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary boost in food stamp benefits — were zeroed out, apparently at the insistence of House Republican leaders.

The two respected institutions that have rated stimulus options in recent days — the Congressional Budget Office and Moody’s Economy.com — both give their two highest ratings for effectiveness as stimulus to the two measures that were dropped.

Reported Stimulus Package Would Provide Little Immediate Boost Due to Removal of Most Effective Provisions

General David Petraeus has a sterling reputation, the love of the press, and the adoration of the GOP.

Don't be surprised if a Democratic presidential win in '08 starts an effort to recruit Petraeus as the Republican candidate in '12.

I wouldn't be surprised but I think it has zero chance of going anywhere.

Petraeus '12

George Packer:

The Clinton-Obama battle reveals two very different ideas of the Presidency.

From the recent archive, here's Manohla Dargis:

Americans consume a lot of garbage, but that may be because they don’t have real choices: 16 of the top box-office earners last weekend — some good, almost all from big studios — monopolized 33,353 of the country’s 38,415 screens. The remaining 78 releases duked it out on the leftover screens.

I doubt that most moviegoers would prefer the relentlessly honest “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” which involves a young woman seeking an illegal abortion, over “Juno,” an ingratiating comedy about a teenager who carries her pregnancy to term. But I wish they had the choice.

Here is Anthony Lane, this week:

He is a terminator, expert in the ending of advanced pregnancies, and you should be warned that “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” flinches neither from the procedures nor the outcome of his trade. There is plenty here to fuel both sides of the abortion debate: the grim and possibly fatal results of driving the practice underground will strengthen the hand of the pro-choice lobby, but, equally, when Otilia kneels on the bathroom floor, surveying the remnant of lost humanity, half wrapped in a towel, the look of dark and wondering pity in her eyes is enough to convince us that here is a deed of unutterable gravity.

Yet this is not an issue movie. We are not being forced to vote, and the characters are defined less by any stated beliefs than by the moral texture of their actions. Look carefully at Bebe as he unpacks his briefcase of crude tools: he is made faceless, filmed from chest to thigh, and that suits his status as a predatory machine. And, once he has departed, having exacted a terrible payment for his services, look at Otilia: She leaves Gabita to rest and goes, as promised, to her boyfriend’s parents’ house for a birthday dinner. There she sits at a table, surrounded by gleaming food and idle chatter, her thoughts miles away and fathoms deep. Again, hands reach in from the side, this time for pickles and wine, but the camera holds steady, minute upon minute, and we gaze at her, face to face. How can people feast when she has just come from the pits of degradation, and must shortly return to dispose of an unwanted fetus? Disposal, incidentally, is recommended via the garbage chute of a high-rise apartment building; try going from this film to “Sweeney Todd,” with its corpses dumped for comic effect, and see how long you last.

The Choice

Pew:

With the economy slowing and the stock market reeling, there is greater agreement among Republicans and Democrats that strengthening the nation's economy should be a top priority for the president and Congress in the coming year. By contrast, partisan differences over the importance of other domestic issues – such as dealing with global warming, helping the poor and providing health insurance to the uninsured – have all increased substantially over the past year.

An Even More Partisan Agenda for 2008